This past Sunday the Fox News network aired an interview with Joel Osteen that provides another example of building bridges gone awry.

Among other things, interviewer Chris Wallace asked Osteen about the Mormon beliefs of presidential candidate Mitt Romney: “And what about Mitt Romney? And I’ve got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?”

To which Osteen replied: “Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.
And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don’t think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that’s what I felt like.”

Wallace followed up, asking: “So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?”

Osteen responded: “I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know.
I certainly can’t say that I agree with everything that I’ve heard about it, but from what I’ve heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that’s a common bond.”

Apparently, Joel Osteen’s opinion is that anyone who says “Christ is my savior” should be accepted as a Christian. But for the phrase “Christ is my savior” to have any meaning, we must first ask, “Who is Christ?” (more…)

In his sermon at the Building Bridges Conference last month, Rev. J.D. Greear addressed the right basis for cooperation between Baptist churches, saying:

…but if you’re a ‘five-pointer’ or you’re not, when you understand that it is the preaching of the gospel– that it is not market trends, not flashy packages, and not loading up people’s minds with medieval names that change people, but that depth comes from understanding the radical love of the substitutionary nature of God and the gospel– that brings change, and that is something around which we can identify.

With this and other statements, Rev. Greear basically called for a God-centered preaching of the gospel message to be the focus of Baptist ‘bridge-building’ activity. But the question must be asked, “What do you mean by the ‘gospel message’?” Mormons preach one message that they call the gospel, Jehovah’s Witnesses preach another that they call the gospel. What is the gospel message around which Baptists can rally in order to cooperate despite other differences?

At the Building Bridges Conference Dr. Malcolm Yarnell summarized the gospel message as follows:

…the Second Person of the eternal Trinity became flesh in order to reveal Himself to us, died on a cross in order to atone for the sins of the whole world, and rose again from the dead so that those who hear, believe, and confess might have eternal life. As the Word is proclaimed, faith in God and repentance from sin are brought near to the hearts and mouths of men, women, and children by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. If you will but believe in Jesus Christ and confess that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Such salvation results in disciples, who publicly profess Jesus as Lord through baptism in a local church, regularly celebrate the Lord’s Supper therein, personally submit to her teaching and redemptive discipline, and preach the gospel to all nations.

Now, before this gospel message is preached, we must certainly speak about fundamental issues of who God is and what sin is, and we also must more fully explain different concepts from the summary above based on the understanding of our particular audience. But overall I think Dr. Yarnell’s summary is excellent, as it is focused on who Christ is and what He has done, and it also clearly states the biblical response to this message. (more…)

A month ago tomorrow the New York Times published a document titled, “Loving God and Neighbor Together.” This document was a response to an open letter signed by “138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world” titled, “A Common Word Between Us and You.”

“Loving God and Neighbor Together” has been signed by a staggering number of self-proclaimed representatives of “the worldwide Christian community,” including (regrettably) the Rev. Dr. John Stott of All Souls Church in London, Dr. Richard Mouw (the President of Fuller Theological Seminary), church-growth gurus Bill Hybels and Robert Schuller, and emergent figureheads Brian McLaren and Scot McKnight.

Also signing this document was Rick Warren, whose Saddleback Church is (unless things have recently changed) still associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Loving God and Neighbor Together” is a type of ‘bridge-building’ effort between Christians and Muslims, based on the supposed “core common ground” of love of God and love of neighbor. The document ignores the fact that Christians and Muslims define “God” differently (what Muslim would agree with a definition of who God is informed by, for example, John 1:1-14?) and it also ignores the fact that Christians and Muslims define “love of neighbor” differently (the unequal standards for justice offered to Muslims and “infidels” under Islamic law is a far cry from Jesus’ example of love for enemies as expressed in, for example, the parable of the good Samaritan).

The preamble of “Loving God and Neighbor Together” ends with the following statement:

Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.

Now, Jesus Christ is truly the “All-Merciful One,” but in a Muslim understanding this title is only applied to Allah, and so the document gives the appearance that Christians are seeking forgiveness from the unitarian God of the Muslims rather than calling our Islamic neighbors to repentance and faith in Christ, which is their only hope of eternal life.

Brothers and sisters reading this post, “Loving God and Neighbor Together” is just the kind of bridge-building that Baptists must reject. We must not only reject seeking building bridges to other religions that are at enmity with the Christian Faith, but we must reject seeking common ground with other Baptists that would influence us to build such bridges and thus compromise the Great Commission. This, I believe, is an illustration of the necessity of Jeff Noblit’s warning, quoted in my last post.

(HT JMark)

This holiday season, Family ‘Christian’ Stores is offering:

Heaven…It’s Easy Button
Designed for those times when life becomes frustrating and confusing. Push this button and remember that “Heaven…it’s easy”

Scripture says:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

There have been several kind folks who have asked me about my “Ask Anything” question that, for about a month, stood at #1 on Mark Driscoll’s “Ask Anything” website. Some of you will remember that exactly a month ago, I bailed out on the project as I thought things had gotten way out of hand, and the comments on the question seemed to miss the point. During this period of time, I seldom visited the “Ask Anything” site and did not vote. However, Andrew (here) and Nathan (here, here, and here) have been blogging it up, for which I am really grateful.

The current vote total for my question stands (as of 12.08.07 at 7:00 a.m.) at 15,236, landing it at #10 on the top 20 list. For the question to make the cut, a spread of around 1,200 votes will have to be overcome. At this point, there are only six days left before the voting process closes. That means we are in the bottom of the ninth inning.

Can the regulative principle rally and make it in the top 9? I think it is worth a try. I remember as a little leaguer when we would put on our rally caps, yell a little louder, and believe a little more. I guess that little leaguer in me is still there. So how is it going to happen? Well, I know at least it will require a team effort.

Here’s two suggestions of what you can do. First, vote ten times for the question every day until Friday. Second, encourage others in your circles to vote. Send out emails to your friends (with the links to the question explaining how to vote, 10 times each day), plug it on your blog, mention it on Facebook or Myspace, and talk it up in the comments of the question. But please do not vote illegally!

In case you missed it, the last time Driscoll actually spoke about my question (shortly after the bail out), he mentioned it in a positive light. Driscoll wrote:

“Much to everyone’s surprise the question on worship fell from the top spot for the first time. As I have been thinking about that question, it does have some good implications regarding the emerging church. Namely, do such things as icons, labyrinth walking etc. constitute freedoms in worship or paganism?”

And in the meta of my question, Driscoll wrote:

“But, for the record, I do think this is a good question and kindly stated. Especially with some Emergent type churches incorporating icons, labyrinths, prayer walking etc. it raises the issue of where a line is drawn between pagan and Christian worship practice. So, I do see this question as allowing me to speak broadly about how Scripture regulates our corporate worship as well as define worship in general as a life lived in totality under God’s rule over all. And, the man who asked the question is a man I have never meet and so I have no personal troubles with him at all. One of our Acts 29 planters I believe does know him and speaks very well of him as a great and thoughtful brother. Perhaps one day we will meet, and I suspect before then I will be preaching his question and I sincerely look forward to doing so as it is worthwhile.“

Six days, down 1200 votes. Ninth-inning rally time. Let’s see what we can do to see this question makes the cut.

In my next few posts on Strange BaptistFire.com, I plan to draw attention to specific statements made at the recent Building Bridges conference. I hope that an examination of the substantive teaching presented at that event will be edifying to all SBF readers.

First, however, a word of caution is in order concerning the concept of “building bridges.” This caution comes from Jeff Noblit, one of the “Calvinistic” speakers at the conference and the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Muscle Shoals, AL: (more…)

In my last post, I talked about the clash between doctrinal certainty as held by Calvinists versus the postmodern embrace of ‘mystery’. Groups like the Emerging Church would often rather place matters of controversy beyond human reach, and I fear - treat revealed truth as though it were not revealed. I think another example of this postmodern tendency can be seen in this post by Chris Lyons, who is a vocal critic of Calvinism as well as pretty much any kind of Systematic Theology.

In his post, Chris Lyons gives his take on Arminianism, Open Theism, and Calvinism (though he mistakenly makes comparisons with fatalism).  Afterwards he concludes:

"In all of these views, systems are built upon one key aspect, or set of related aspects: foreknowledge, free will, relationship. I would posit, though, that each is but one view of the whole, which is impossible for us to see in its entirety. I would posit that each view, in and of itself, builds a system based on its own limited eisegesis of scripture. I would posit that the most accurate view possible for us to attain is in accepting that the basis of each of these views […] are all correct and not in contradiction to one another. I would posit that any apparent contradiction exists because of the previously mentioned shortcoming in our blindness - we try to place God inside of time in order to understand Him, when He clearly exists apart from it." (emphasis mine).

The fact that it has always been understood throughout church history that there are obvious contradictions and incompatibilities between each of these views is something that Chris expects us to overlook.  Supposedly, they are all different angles on the holistic truth which can’t be known; there are no contradictions, and we are asked to simply take his word for it that this is a mystery that we should not try to explain.  On the surface, this thinking (which is common in postmodernism) seems very tolerant, but it’s actually very intolerant towards anyone who dares to declare that any one of these views are the truth while the other views are contradictory and false. That’s the one thing that is unacceptable and presumably can’t be true. Later on the page Chris Lyons explains that to accept any one of these views as being the true teaching that is revealed in the Word of God is equivalent to putting God in a box.

That brings to mind a post I read some time ago on Stand To Reason’s blog, about this overused phrase "Putting God in a Box":

"[The line is] actually kind of rude because it implies that we’re doing something illegitimate with God. But you know what? We all put God in a box - the box being how we best understand God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture. The box is one of God’s own nature we’re all just trying to figure out what the box looks like.

God should be in a box. What’s the alternative? God has no limitations on what He can be like or act like? That is frightening. God Himself is limited by His own nature. He can’t lie. He can’t sin. He can’t go out of existence. God’s box - the definition of what He is like - is what makes Him God and a Person we can love and trust and glorify. If God isn’t in some kind of a box, He would be arbitrary.

God’s box is the biggest and greatest box there is. He’s omniscient - He knows and believes all true things; but He cannot believe false things. He’s omnipotent - God can do whatever power can do. His potentialities are at the greatest limit of the attributes He possesses. But those very attributes define Him, they describe His box. Our goal is to get the best idea of what that box looks like."

While I think the Emerging Church and Postmodernists such as Chris Lyons are too often ready to shroud revealed truth in a cloud of mystery, I also think we must be careful to allow for mystery where it is legitimately encountered.  As John Calvin warns:

"The discussion of Predestination—a subject of itself rather intricate—is made very perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no barriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and from soaring beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine secrets unscrutinized or unexplored . . . First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into Predestination, they penetrate into the inmost recesses of divine wisdom, where the careless and confident intruder will obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity . . . For we know that when we have exceeded the limits of the word, we shall get into a devious and irksome course, in which errors, slips, and falls will be inevitable. Let us then, in the first place bear in mind, that to desire any more knowledge of Predestination than that which is unfolded in the Word of God, indicates as great folly as to wish to walk through impassible roads, or to see in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed to be ignorant of some things relative to a subject in which there is a kind of learned ignorance." –Institutes, Ch. XXI, sect. I, II.

The key is, as Calvin said - to stay inside the limits of word, but at the same time being a Workman (2 Tim 2:15) with that which is revealed in scripture. On all sorts of topics, including election and predestination, we may not always like the conclusions that we come to in taking an honest and realistic approach to scripture. But really, it’s no different than another systematized concept that was once the subject of much debate, and yet is embraced by many postmodernists such as Chris Lyons, and that is the Trinity. There’s mystery in it - to be sure, but we are still able to systematically define it within the bounds of scripture, and we believe it is true - because that’s what the bible teaches about our triune and sovereign God.

In the wake of the “Building Bridges” conference last week at Ridgecrest, Norman Jameson, editor of the Biblical Recorder (the North Carolina Baptist state newspaper), writes,

…if the general attitude of presenters is typical of the players in this debate [i.e., the debate over “Calvinism”] nationwide, there is hope for civil, informed dialog among people who hold different views. That bears celebrating.

This, I believe, is the reaction that the organizers of this conference hoped for, and I pray that more across the nation have the same reaction.

However, there are severe problems with the rest of Jameson’s article. [Norman Jameson, “Bridge building conference lowers alarm level,” Biblical Recorder, 11/30/07; HT:: Founders Ministries blog.] (more…)

By Nathan White

Regarding the recent discussion involving the Regulative Principle of Worship, I ask you to briefly note the following passage and consider my comments below:

Mark 7:1-13 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) — then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Note the following observations from this text, regarding the RPW:

• There is such a thing as vain/useless worship, even when the worshiper is sincere: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.’
• The commandment of God is abandoned when man-made traditions are embraced: ‘You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.’
• The Word of God is made void by implementing tradition: ‘thus making void the word of God by your tradition’.
• The washing of hands was never condemned by the law, much like drama and other modern forms of ‘worship’ are never condemned in scripture, as they are all certainly seemingly harmless acts, but embracing traditions which are beyond the bounds of scripture, as if they are worship and/or obedience, is in actuality replacing and superseding scripture, which is vain, useless, and condeming worship.
  
• The Old Testament law is specifically referenced by Jesus as binding on worship, just as we can now look to Deut 12:29-31 as binding/instructive on our principles of worship: ‘For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’’
• The Pharisees claimed to be obeying the commandment to honor father and mother, and would never deny it’s truthfulness, but by setting up their tradition they undermined it completely.

Brethren, as we have spent several posts outlining, the Regulative Principle of Worship is not a legalistic, arbitrary, and binding set of rules aimed at ruining the worship experience, but it is rather a firm conviction, based on an abundant of Old and New Testament texts, which keep us fallen creatures to falling into error, heaping up condemnation, and erecting idols in our worship of the Living God. Let us magnify Christ by preaching and proclaiming His word; let us not nullify it by setting up our seemingly harmful traditions in place of Christ.